table of contents · regeneration: toronto's waterfront and the sustainable city: final...

E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t

chapter 2. purpose of the undertaking

Table of Contents

page

2. Purpose of the Undertaking ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Problem Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Ecologically Dysfunctional River Mouth .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Flood Risk Vulnerability ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Derelict Waterfront .............................................................................................................. 2-4

2.2 Opportunity Assessment .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.1 A Naturalized River Mouth .................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.2 Flood Protection .................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.2.3 Revitalized Waterfront ........................................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.3.1 Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability Framework ............................................... 2-6 2.2.3.2 International Design Competition ..................................................................... 2-6 2.2.3.3 Port Lands Acceleration Initiative (PLAI) .......................................................... 2-9

2.3 Study Areas ................................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.1 Project Study Area ............................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.2 Impact Assessment Study Area ........................................................................................ 2-13

2.4 Temporal Boundaries ..................................................................................................................... 2-15

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Regulatory Flood Spill Zones for the Lower Don River ...................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2-2 Project Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 2-12

Figure 2-3 Impact Assessment Study Area ....................................................................................................... 2-14



2-1

2. Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the DMNP is to make an ecologically functional river mouth, remove flood risk and provide

opportunities to revitalize the Port Lands area of Toronto’s waterfront. These are referred to as the three drivers of

the DMNP. The following selected documents were referenced as background to the problem and opportunity

assessment:

Keating Channel EA Study, Acres on behalf of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority, 1983

Bringing Back the Don, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, 1991

Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Royal Commission on

the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1992

Forty Steps to a New Don, Don Watershed Task Force, 1994

Clean Waters, Clear Choices, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Team, 1994

Unlocking the Port Lands: Directions for the Future, City of Toronto, 1999

Our Toronto Waterfront: Gateway to the New Canada, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force

Report, 2000

Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, City of Toronto, 2003

Waterfront Scan & Environmental Improvement Strategy Study, SENES Consultants Limited on

behalf of the City of Toronto, 2003

Class EA for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection, Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority, 2005

Sustainability Framework, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, 2005

2.1 Problem Assessment

The configuration of the existing Don Mouth was engineered primarily for the purposes of achieving transportation

efficiency and to create additional land for port and other urban uses. This has resulted in the current condition with

lands vulnerable to flooding, a serious reduction in ecological function of the river mouth and an area that is neither

aesthetically pleasing nor available for public use and enjoyment. Thus, the problems addressed by the DMNP are

the lack of ecological function at the river mouth, vulnerability to flood risk and the derelict nature of this area of the

Port Lands.

2.1.1 Ecologically Dysfunctional River Mouth

Naturalization of the Don Mouth is not a new idea, but rather embraces the concept initiated by the Task Force to

Bring Back the Don in 1991. In its document Bringing Back the Don (Task Force to Bring Back the Don, 1991),

the Task Force examined several concepts for restoring some of the river mouth functions lost when the river was

straightened and Ashbridge’s Bay marsh filled in between the late 1800s and early 1900s to create the Port Lands.

Its objectives for improving the Don Mouth included enhancement of the river mouth, creation of aquatic habitat,

improvement of terrestrial habitats, encouraging appropriate uses of the valley, improving access to the valley and

co-ordination of planning policy for the valley. This plan, while ground breaking at the time, lacked an in-depth

technical evaluation of the options and did not consider property limitations (Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront

and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, 1992).



2-2

The report and the groundswell of public interest behind the Lower Don soon led to the formation of the Don

Watershed Regeneration Task Force, later to become the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Their report,

Forty Steps to a New Don (Don Watershed Task Force, 1994) continued this call for naturalization of the Don

Mouth, as did ensuing report cards which served as a call to action (Don Watershed Regeneration Council,

1997, 2000, 2003 and 2006).

Since that time, a number of stakeholders have embraced this idea of a naturalized Don Mouth and incorporated

the opportunity into planning activities for the Central Waterfront, the West Don Lands and the Port Lands,

ensconcing this notion firmly into plans for the waterfront (Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, City of Toronto,

2003a). The naturalization of the Don Mouth with associated flood protection was considered one of four priority

projects for Waterfront Toronto in its first five-year plan.

Numerous efforts have been undertaken by the TRCA, municipalities, non-governmental organizations and local

communities within the Don watershed to:

Improve the quality of water entering the river;

Reduce the quantity of water entering the river during storm events;

Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats;

Provide improved recreational opportunities;

Protect source water resources; and,

Provide linkages throughout the watershed that will be necessary to support a new river mouth.

2.1.2 Flood Risk Vulnerability

Flood protection for the Lower Don River is a key component of Toronto's waterfront revitalization. The Don River

was identified in the TRCA 1980 Watershed Plan as the number one priority location requiring flood protection

within TRCA’s jurisdiction. This ranking was based upon an assessment of the extent of area flooded under the

Regulatory Flood and the risk to life and property that it represented. The Keating Channel EA (Acres, 1983)

identified three different Spill Zones for the Lower Don River. The Keating Channel EA assessed the need for

dredging the Keating Channel, as well as the consequences of the action. The study concluded that to avoid an

additional increase in flood risk to the surrounding areas of the Lower Don River, annual maintenance dredging and

disposal activities were necessary to offset sediment infilling of the Keating Channel. This would also serve to

reduce the volume of contaminated sediment in the channel.

The activities outlined in the Keating Channel EA (Acres, 1983) reduced the frequency under which flooding occurs

within the Port Lands area, although portions or zones of the area would remain flood vulnerable. These zones are:

Spill Zone 1 – the Port Lands;

Spill Zone 2 – east of the Don River and north of Lake Shore Boulevard East; and,

Spill Zone 3 – the lands west of the Don River.

Through the process of the DMNP, the extent of flood risk area has been updated, as shown in Figure 2-1.

The Lower Don River West (LDRW) Remedial Flood Protection Project and its associated Class EA addressed the

area of Spill Zone 3. The DMNP addresses the alleviation of flood risk for Spill Zones 1 and 2.

2-3

Figure 2-1 Regulatory Flood Spill Zones for the Lower Don River



2-4

Computer models have been used to define the extent of the area of land that is anticipated to be flooded if a storm

the size of Hurricane Hazel (the Regulatory Flood) were to occur over the Don River watershed. The Regulatory

Floodplain would cover approximately 290 hectares of land in the Port Lands, south and east of the Don River and

an area east of the Don River north of Lake Shore Boulevard East, based on modelling undertaken as part of this

EA. Factors that influence the extent of flooding within this area include:

Several low-lying structures (road and rail) crossing the Don River that impede higher flows;

An absence of a confining valley around the Don River;

A ninety degree corner where the Don River enters the Keating Channel resulting in increased flood

water levels overflowing the southeast wall of the Keating Channel;

A wide range of water levels in Lake Ontario (across seasons and years);

Heavy sediment deposition in the Keating Channel that increases flood risk if not managed; and,

Ice jams during the winter and spring and debris jams throughout the year, which could exacerbate

flooding to adjacent areas.

All of these issues must be managed if the flood risk is to be managed and eliminated, which would then permit

redevelopment.

2.1.3 Derelict Waterfront

The Port Lands area of the Toronto Waterfront has a long history of industrial and Port use. Extensive areas of

underused and vacant lands are from past industrial, shipping and railway uses. These past uses have left a

legacy of problems and issues such as contaminated land that are challenges to overcome during the revitalization

of the lands. The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force Report, Our Toronto Waterfront: Gateway to the

New Canada (the Fung Report), was released in March 2000 and outlined a plan to revitalize the Toronto

waterfront. This was the starting point for the work Waterfront Toronto has been undertaking over the last ten

years. Planning efforts to date have focused on the opportunity created by large areas of mostly public-owned,

underused or vacant land adjacent to the city core and intermodal transportation links and endowed with a location

between the central core, Lake Ontario and existing parks and natural areas. The DMNP and the planning efforts

for the Lower Don Lands have set the direction and created the planning context for the revitalization efforts in the

Port Lands area.

2.2 Opportunity Assessment

2.2.1 A Naturalized River Mouth

The naturalization of the river mouth is yet another step toward revitalizing and enhancing the quality and function

of the Don River at its mouth. It represents an exciting opportunity to naturalize the area of the Don River valley as

it connects to Lake Ontario and upstream reaches, and creates an area that is welcoming and enjoyable to the

public while improving natural river mouth functions.

The naturalization of the Don Mouth will provide opportunities to establish a floodplain within the lower reaches and

Don Mouth, which will over the long term:

Improve aquatic and terrestrial ecological functions and provide enhanced linkages to upstream habitats;

Address sediment deposition, debris and ice jams;



2-5

Accommodate changes in precipitation, water flow and Lake Ontario water levels resulting from climate

change;

Enhance recreation opportunities and local aesthetics;

Provide natural habitat, pedestrian and bicycle trail linkages between Lake Ontario and the Don

watershed;

Manage significant sources of soil and groundwater pollution from lands adjacent to the Keating

Channel; and,

Enhance the low flow habitat conditions within the Don Narrows while not increasing flood risk

elsewhere. The Don Narrows extends from Riverdale Park to the north side of the CN Railway and

refers to the river channel in this area.

2.2.2 Flood Protection

The Flood Protection Area is the area currently at risk during the Regulatory Flood. The Flood Protection Area

encompasses lands in Spill Zones 1 and 2 as defined by TRCA. The Spill Zones were defined based on the extent

of area flooded under the Regulatory Flood and the risk to life and property that this flooding represents. The

DMNP is an opportunity to alleviate the flood risk to over 290 hectares of urban land east and south of the Don

River. The alleviation of flood risk frees portions of this area for more intensive development. Leaving the flood risk

in place is a detriment to the revitalization of these lands.

2.2.3 Revitalized Waterfront

Since the release of the Fung Report in 2000, a number of reports and planning documents have informed the

alternatives available for the revitalization of the waterfront. The City of Toronto approved Central Waterfront

Secondary Plan in 2003 (City of Toronto, 2003a). The Secondary Plan created a framework for waterfront planning

for the next several years, and established four “Core Principles” for waterfront revitalization, which include:

Removing barriers / making connections;

Building a network of spectacular waterfront parks and public spaces;

Promoting a clean and green environment; and,

Creating dynamic and diverse new communities.

Similarly, Toronto’s Official Plan (adopted in 2002) emphasizes, “increased public enjoyment and use of lands

along the water’s edge…” and that, “private development and public works will improve public spaces in the

waterfront; and maintain and increase opportunities for public views of the water and support a sense of belonging

to the community” (City of Toronto, 2010, p. 2-25). The Official Plan sets in place a mixed-use policy regime

through the Regeneration Areas land use designation for the Central Waterfront area including residential and

commercial development.

For the Lower Don Lands specifically, the revitalization of derelict lands has been guided by Waterfront Toronto’s

Lower Don Lands Framework Plan (2010a) and Sustainability Framework (TWRC, 2005a).



2-6

2.2.3.1 Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability Framework

One of the objectives of the DMNP (Objective 7) addresses issues of sustainability of the DMNP, as directed by the

Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability Framework. Waterfront Toronto's

Sustainability Framework provides the overarching corporate policy that provides guidance for the waterfront’s

sustainable community transformation and integration of sustainability principles into all facets of decision-making

and project delivery.

The Sustainability Framework is organized into a series of five outcomes that reflect the desired characteristics of

waterfront communities. The various components of the DMNP either strongly support or do not prevent

achievement of the Waterfront Toronto’s sustainability vision, and link to the five outcomes in the following ways:

1. Sharing the Benefits: NET PLUS

Changes brought about by the activities of the DMNP will improve the waterfront in a way that

provides clear and potential benefits to the city, region, province and country as a whole. These

include creating the opportunity for re-urbanization of underutilized serviced urban lands, reduced

car dependency, improved air quality through expanded parkland and enhanced tree canopy,

stormwater management consistent with the City of Toronto’s Wet Weather Flow Management

Master Plan, enhanced terrestrial and aquatic habitat and improved biodiversity.

2. Global Hub of Creativity and Innovation

The neighbourhoods surrounding the Project Study Area are creative districts and the DMNP does

not preclude connecting to and building these opportunities in the future.

3. The Urban Cottage

The DMNP will result in enhanced recreational opportunities, a cleaner environment (including the

creation of high functioning aquatic and terrestrial habitat), and a closer resemblance to a northern

lakeside cottage area with year-round recreational and cultural opportunities and green spaces.

4. Feels Like Home

The DMNP will create the opportunity for a network of public transit to ease transport, live / work

options and the development of neighbourhoods and communities open to Canadians of a variety

of backgrounds.

5. Strength through Diversity

The new, naturalized river mouth will include a greater diversity of plants and wildlife. The

removal of land from flood risk will allow for mixed-use land development, leading to a more

diverse economic base.

The Sustainability Framework recognized the EA process as an effective means of achieving sustainability for

relevant projects. Through the EA process, the development and assessment of alternatives is informed by the

vision for sustainability and the implementation of mitigation and monitoring. Performance metrics confirm the

achievements in sustainability.

2.2.3.2 International Design Competition

Within the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the DMNP, “Alternatives To” the undertaking were identified and evaluated

(see Chapter 4 for a full description of this process and the results). The ToR also presented a five-step process



2-7

for the development and evaluation of “Alternative Methods” (see Chapter 5 for a full description of this process).

These steps are:

Step 1 – Develop Long List of Alternative Methods

Step 2 – Technical Feasibility Assessment of Long List to Identify Short List

Step 3 – Refinement of Short List

Step 4 – Reduction of Short List

Step 5 – Comparative Evaluation of Short List and Confirmation of the Preferred Alternative

In the fall of 2006, Steps 1 and 2 of this process were completed, and the results were presented to the public in a

forum on December 5, 2006. Work began on Steps 3 and 4 early in January 2007.

In 2007, Waterfront Toronto, with the support of TRCA and the City of Toronto, launched the international Lower

Don Lands Design Competition recognizing the link between naturalization, flood protection, infrastructure and the

land use potential of the area.

The competition’s goals were to create an iconic identity for the Don River that accommodates crucial flood

protection and habitat restoration requirements, and to develop a bold and comprehensive concept design that

integrates development, transportation infrastructure and the re-naturalized river mouth into a harmonious whole.

Designers were to provide fresh ideas for integrating the various competing project objectives under a unifying

vision for the area, whereby a naturalized mouth of the Don would provide a key focus for the future communities

within the Lower Don Lands area. The intended outcome of the Design Competition was to identify a design team

that would build these ideas into the alternatives that were evaluated through the EA process.

Waterfront Toronto and TRCA worked together to develop the Competition Brief for the Design Competition that

identified the goals and objectives, as well as the review and selection procedures. Waterfront Toronto and TRCA

also collaborated to brief the teams selected for the Design Competition on the requirements of the DMNP ToR and

to evaluate the ideas presented by the teams. This involvement helped to ensure that the submissions, especially

the submission from the winning design team, were consistent with the goals and objectives of the EA and reflected

the work that had been completed to date for the EA.

The Study Team was approaching completion of the Step 4 evaluation when the results of the Design Competition

became known. Work on Step 4 was put on hold in order to take the opportunity to integrate the results of the

competition with the on-going EA work.

Design Brief – Design Elements

Each team in the Design Competition was required to incorporate the following design elements into their schemes:

1. Naturalize the Mouth of the Don River;

2. Create a Continuous Riverfront Park System;

3. Provide for Harmonious New Development;

4. Extend Queens Quay Eastward and Enhance the Road Network;

5. Prioritize Public Transit;

6. Develop a Gateway into the Port Lands;

7. Humanize Existing Infrastructure;

8. Enhance the Martin Goodman Trail;

9. Expand Opportunities for Interaction with the Water; and,

10. Promote Sustainable Development.



2-8

Ultimately, the Design Competition was a successful application of integrated sustainability thinking to develop

planning solutions for an intensely complicated area of Toronto’s waterfront. It involved the application of new

environmental approaches and infrastructure solutions to address the significant infrastructure and natural deficits

of the area. The result was a series of highly integrated, sustainably oriented design solutions for urban

development and ecological restoration.

Competition Results

On May 8, 2007, Waterfront Toronto selected the Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Inc. (MVVA) team as the

winners of the Design Competition. Key elements arising from their competition design as it relates to the DMNP

included:

The retention of most of the Keating Channel;

A new river channel that flows south and then west into the Inner Harbour with an approximate location

halfway between the Ship Channel and Keating Channel;

A flood spillway into the Ship Channel;

The integration of park space and natural areas along the river corridor;

The retention and incorporation of the Gardiner Expressway into their design;

A project build-out and soil remediation and management plan; and,

A vision for the establishment of transportation infrastructure for better connecting the Port Lands with

the rest of the city.

Effects of the Design Competition on the EA Process

Following the Lower Don Lands Design Competition, the MVVA team design (MVVA, 2007) was reviewed,

evaluated and modified to ensure that it was consistent with the goals and objectives of the DMNP.

The Design Competition created three key changes for the ongoing EA work. First, the Design Competition created

the vision for integrating the naturalized Don Mouth with the surrounding future communities. This led to the re-

evaluation of criteria and indicators against which various alternatives were measured. Second, this more evolved

integration required that a larger study area be examined in order to ensure that the integration could occur

effectively for all of the alternatives being considered. Third, it led to a re-examination and refinement of the

previously developed alternatives in terms of the area available for naturalization, the composition and optimization

of naturalized areas and the area available for development and parkland. The EA work had to be re-examined in

light of these changes. This re-examination is addressed throughout this report.

The design competition also led to the preparation of the Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, which provides a

vision for the Lower Don Lands structured on the new river mouth. The Design Competition outcomes informed the

first two phases of the Municipal Class EA process for streets and servicing for the entire Lower Don Lands,

completion of phases three and four of the Class EA process and the development of a Precinct Plan for the

Keating Channel.

In 2010, Toronto City Council endorsed the Framework Plan, Lower Don Lands Infrastructure Master Plan EA

(currently being amended as the Lower Don Lands Environmental Assessment Master Plan (LDL EAMP)), Keating

Channel Precinct Plan and approved amendments to the City’s Central Waterfront Secondary Plan (OPA 388).



2-9

2.2.3.3 Port Lands Acceleration Initiative (PLAI)

In September 2011, Toronto City Council unanimously approved a protocol (known as the PLAI) to develop a

business and implementation plan with the objective of accelerating development opportunities in the Port Lands.

The PLAI sought to examine whether the Lower Don Lands could be developed more affordably and sooner than

previously anticipated. As part of the PLAI planning process, the DMNP was put on hold and a short list of

“Alternative Methods” that were identified during the initial EA process were re-examined within the context of City

Council direction.

The purpose of the PLAI was to integrate core principles from the DMNP such as flood protection and

naturalization, evaluate options for phased development and integrate higher-value interim and permanent uses

during phasing. The PLAI also explored ways that the private sector could help spur development within the area.

The ultimate goal of the PLAI was to reduce the overall cost of development and to develop a phased approach to

development that would provide opportunities for redevelopment to fund required infrastructure, including flood

protection measures.

A number of the short-listed options identified in the DMNP were evaluated with respect to their functional

effectiveness, naturalization potential, provision for city building, cost and the ability to phase development.

Additionally, the effects of the project on existing land uses and industrial operations (e.g., Lafarge Canada Inc. (54

Polson Street), Redpath Sugar and Toronto Port Authority (TPA) operations) were considered so that the design of

the new river valley system would accommodate existing shipping and Port operations, where appropriate.

Stakeholders were concerned about the effects of the proposed new river mouth relating to potential navigational

risks, impacts to businesses and lost revenue related to the loss of dockwalls and impacts on operations of both

landowners and Port users within Polson Quay.

The analysis reconfirmed that the optimal solution is to re-direct the primary discharge of the Don River to the Inner

Harbour through Polson Quay, while constructing a greenway adjacent to the Ship Channel and maintaining the

Keating Channel. The provision of these three elements provides the greatest flexibility and effectiveness in flood

conveyance, as well as the greatest opportunity for good city building.

The Study Team participated in the preparation of the business and implementation plan for development of the

Port Lands by Waterfront Toronto (in cooperation with the City and with input from the Toronto Port Lands

Company (TPLC)), thereby ensuring that the plan, or any options in the plan, were accurately costed and

consistent with the ToR for the DMNP.

The PLAI determined that large-scale revitalization will likely require the phased implementation of flood protection

and the substantial provision of major and local infrastructure to replace what is in most cases non-existent,

outdated or inadequate, having been designed for an industrial district.

The analysis undertaken during the PLAI confirmed the fundamental conclusions of the DMNP; however, certain

modifications to the previous design - technically described as Alternative 4WS (2010) (see Chapter 6 for a

detailed description) – were proposed. The option emerging from the review involved a slight realignment of the

river, the river mouth and the greenway which is further discussed in Section 5.5.1 and it was referred to as

Alternative 4WS Amended. The outcomes of the PLAI demonstrated that large scale revitalization could occur

utilizing a phased implementation of the required flood protection and infrastructure.



2-10

The following is an excerpt from Appendix 1 of the PLAI Final Report (Waterfront Toronto, TRCA and City of

Toronto, 2012) that was approved by the City of Toronto Council (October, 2012) and provides a more detailed

overview of the PLAI findings:

The flood protection plan recommended in the DMNP is fundamentally sound. The plan can be

modified to reduce costs while assuring its flood protection and naturalization qualities;

The revised plan for the Port Lands will provide generous public parks and open spaces and ensures

that the water’s edge is preserved for public use;

The flood protection, naturalization and open space plan provides the framework for the creation of a

great new waterfront district that can exemplify excellence in urban design and sustainability;

A phased, transit-supported development strategy is essential for a successful Port Lands, from a

sustainability and development perspective;

The Port Lands is a working port whose functions are essential for the operation of the City and should

be maintained in place;

There is strong market interest in the area and development interests are eager to proceed once flood

protection, infrastructure, the planning framework and cost allocation issues are resolved;

The Port Lands plan permits phased development, allowing the site’s considerable infrastructure costs

potentially to be progressively offset by development revenues;

A long-term business case for proceeding with the Port Lands is supported by a mix of land revenues,

development charges and other funding sources that will minimise if not eliminate required public

funding;

The Port Lands can play an important role in the future of Toronto as a global city; and,

The development of the Port Lands is a major opportunity for Toronto that can now be successfully realized.

The PLAI confirmed that development of the Port Lands can be advanced in a direction consistent with the goals of

the DMNP and the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan by providing effective flood protection, promoting the

naturalization of the new mouth of the Don River and creating a generous system of waterfront public spaces within

new city districts while minimizing requirements for significant additional public investment.

2.3 Study Areas

Two specific study areas have been defined for the DMNP. The Project Study Area is the area available for the

development of naturalization and flood protection alternatives. The Impact Assessment Study Area is a broader

area where the construction and establishment of the DMNP may result in both direct and indirect effects.

2.3.1 Project Study Area

The Project Study Area for the DMNP was defined in the ToR as follows:

The Project Study Area consists of two parts: the Don Mouth from the CN railway bridge to the harbour /

lake and lands adjacent to the Lower Don River, and the Don Narrows from the CN railway bridge north

to Riverdale Park. Within the Don Narrows, only improvements within the river channel are to be

considered. The Project Study Area is the area in which project components will be constructed and

operated and the area in which we are proposing alternatives. Therefore, it is in this area that the

majority of the direct effects will occur.



2-11

The Project Study Area is constrained by fixed infrastructure such as roads and rail lines, the result of

the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project, and opportunities for reuse of the land as

identified by other planning studies and initiatives. The lands east of Parliament Street and south of

Lake Shore Boulevard, commonly known as the ‘Home Depot lands’, and the small quay at the

entrance to the Keating Channel have been included to ensure that there is sufficient area to look at

options for the Don Mouth. A 300 metre wide corridor immediately west of and parallel to the Don

Roadway, which includes the area for the proposed Don Greenway, connects the Keating Channel to

the Ship Channel to address previously identified alignments for the Don River.

During the Design Competition, the four design teams recognized the need to expand the Project Study Area for

the integration of the river mouth within built communities along with the necessary infrastructure. This change was

supported by Waterfront Toronto, TRCA and the City; therefore, the Project Study Area for the DMNP was revised

to reflect the more diverse integration opportunities available once a broader area is considered.

All four design teams considered the area bordered by the Don Rail Yard to the north, the Don Roadway to the

east, the Inner Harbour to the west and the northern edge of the Ship Channel to the south to be the area in which

the naturalized river mouth, new communities and infrastructure need to be integrated together. Within this area

the plans put forward included the naturalized river mouth, the development of a prescribed number of residential

units, employment areas, recreational facilities, community facilities, transit and commercial and retail areas.

Given the recognition of the need for integration within the larger area, the Project Study Area (Figure 2-2) for the

DMNP was revised1 and presented to the public at Public Forum No. 2 in March, 2008. The Don Narrows remains

as part of the Project Study Area. The area defined as the Don Mouth was revised to be the lower portion of the

Project Study Area available for naturalization assuming that all of the other components of the urban fabric would

be provided around this. As a result of the Design Competition, some of the infrastructure previously constraining

the Project Study Area and opportunities for naturalization might be moved or reoriented, thus removing the

constraints.

1. The ToR allowed for some flexibility in the Project Study Area, stating: “As the consideration of alternatives and environmental effects proceeds during the EA and as opportunities are identified to cooperate with other planning initiatives, adjustments may be

made to the Study Area.”

2-12

Figure 2-2 Project Study Area



2-13

2.3.2 Impact Assessment Study Area

The Impact Assessment Study Area (Figure 2-3) encompasses the entire Inner Harbour, Outer Harbour, Toronto

Islands, Ashbridges Bay, Tommy Thompson Park and central waterfront areas. This study area includes the near

shore waters of Lake Ontario that may be affected by the DMNP, as well as existing operations and infrastructure

that might be affected by the DMNP or affect the design and establishment of the DMNP such as rail lines, rail

yards, road networks, utilities, port operations and other existing and proposed uses. It reflects a broader area that

may be affected directly, indirectly and cumulatively by construction and establishment of project components

particularly with respect to the extent of a sediment plume, recreational linkages, property values, connectivity with

other area planning and wildlife linkages. The Impact Assessment Study Area has been defined in greater detail in

relevant sections of the EA for the evaluation of alternatives and the detailed effects assessment of the preferred

alternative.

2-14

Figure 2-3 Impact Assessment Study Area



2-15

2.4 Temporal Boundaries

The temporal boundaries for the DMNP which will be used as the basis for the effects assessment are as follows:

Detailed Design, Permit Approvals, Land Acquisition and Construction / Implementation:

approximately 20 to 30 years – timing subject to funding (anticipated EA approval: mid to late 2014);

Establishment:

defined as the timeframe for monitoring and adaptive management of the naturalization project

(approximately the first 15 years after construction); and,

Post-Establishment Monitoring:

timeframe for monitoring and operational management (sediment, ice and debris) to identify further

intervention if naturalized system cannot manage on its own (onwards from the establishment phase).

table of contents · regeneration: toronto's waterfront and the sustainable city: final...

Documents